[October 28, 1915]

## Introduction

(1) The urgency of the question. On everyone's lips or in everyone's ears.

Why?

(α) War inflames national animosity and threatens national oppression.

(β) Imperialism is the epoch of the oppression of nations on a new historical basis.

(2) The task of Z. L. (the "Zimmerwald Left") to unite and on this ground also smash social-chauvinism, to clarify the consciousness of the working class.

## I. Economic Viewpoint

(3) "Capital has outgrown national boundaries. The unification of nations (in a single state) is inevitable and progressive." True! But Marxism ≠ Struvism{161}, not a justification and defense of violence against nations, but revolutionary struggle for socialism, unification of workers of different nations, their brotherhood.

(4) Against violence and for the democratic unification of nations. "Freedom of separation" is the highest expression of democratism.

(5) Economic unification benefits from democratism, from freedom of separation (Norway and Sweden; America vs{193} Germany).

## II. Historical Viewpoint

(6) "Self-determination of nations is a worn-out slogan of the past epoch of bourgeois-democratic revolutions and movements."

– Imperialism creates the oppression of nations on a new basis. Imperialism renews this old slogan.

(7) The East and colonies (> 1000 million population of the earth). "New" bourgeois-democratic national movements.

Colonies 1876–314 million.

+ 81%.

1914–570 »

## III. Political Viewpoint

(8) We do not reject bourgeois-democratic slogans, but pursue what is democratic in them more consistently, more fully, more decisively.

(9) Not the interests of nations, but the interests of brotherhood, solidarity of workers of different nations.

## IV. Viewpoint of State Boundaries

(10) We do not defend the existing boundaries of states.

(11) We are not for the utopia of small states, we do not demand everywhere and always the "independence of national states"…

(12) We put in the first place the interests of the class struggle of workers with any possible changes in state boundaries.

(13) The "dissolution" of Russia (England, Austria?) = United States.

## V. Viewpoint of International Class Struggle of the Proletariat

(14) The danger (and inevitability under capitalism) of national animosity and mistrust (à la Axelrod? No!)

(15) The crux: the relationship of oppressing nations to oppressed nations.

(16) Class solidarity of workers of different nations is impossible without recognition of the right to separation.

## VI. "Practical Feasibility"

(17) "Utopia!" Norway vs. Sweden.

(18) "An exception!" ("A backwater.")

Yes, like all democratic reforms and transformations.

(19) "Practically = zero."

No =

(α) freedom of agitation for separation

(β) decision on the question of separation by referendum (2 §§ of the constitution).

(20) "What are the guarantees? Only war will decide!"

(Our guarantees – the education of the working masses in the spirit of brotherhood of nations.)

## VII. Military Viewpoint

(21) "Self-determination of nations = justification for participation in war."

There is war and war. National wars we do not "reject." They are possible even now.

(22) "If self-determination, then Holland, Sweden etc. have the right to defend themselves." How can one defend oneself in an imperialist war?

## VIII. Struggle Against Social-Chauvinism

(23) Social-chauvinism is the same inevitable product of imperialism as wireless telegraphy.

Struggle against it = the essence now.

(24) Struggle against the chauvinism of one's own nation.

(25) The main thing – great-power chauvinism.

(26) "Recognition of equal rights" = circumvention of the question of state construction, of separation, of cases of imperialist war.

(27) Wir treffen den Nagel auf den Kopf only by our formulation. Only this formula strikes and cuts through international social-chauvinism.

## IX. Comparison with Divorce{194}

(28) Rosa Luxemburg on divorce (vs. autonomy).

(29) Semkovsky's objection.

(30) His incorrectness.

## X. The Case of Weil

(31) Social-chauvinists expelled Weil, a betrayal of their principles.

(32) Participation in war from our viewpoint is not a sin. But for agitation in the army? for the transformation of war into civil war?

(33) The choice of nation. (In which army?)

## XI. The Attitude of Liberal Bourgeoisie

(34) In Russia: we (Kadets) are for equal rights, but have never undertaken to defend the right to separate from the Russian state.

(35) Karl Kautsky on political self-determination ("enough of cultural and autonomy")…

## XII. The Experience of the RSDLP

(36) The formulation of the question at the Congress of 1903.

(37) The departure of R.S.D. and entry in 1906.{162}

(38) Never officially demanded the abolition of § 9.{163}

(39) The "alliance" of opportunists with Rosa in 1914 (Liquidators Semkovsky; Libman; Yurkevich; Alexinsky).

## XIII. The Example of Marx and Engels

(40) 1848 Germany vs. oppressed nations ("Nachlaß," III, p. 109, 113 and 114){195}.

1866 Engels and the International (Marx) on Poland and Germany.

1869 Marx on Ireland.

(41) The viewpoint of the interests of workers of the oppressing nation.

## XIV. The "Formula" of the "Zimmerwald Left"

(42) "Non-support of the domination of one nation over another"…

This formula = "The first step toward rapprochement"…{196}

Written in October, before the 15th (28th), 1915.

First published in 1937 in Lenin Miscellany XXX.

Printed according to the manuscript.